Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:24:41 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the ART Area General Applications Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : The file URI Scheme
        Author          : Matthew Kerwin
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-10.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2016-05-30

Abstract:
   This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.

   It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across
   the broad spectrum of existing usages.  At the same time it notes
   some other current practices around the use of file URIs.

Note to Readers (To be removed by the RFC Editor)

   This draft should be discussed on the IETF Applications Area Working
   Group discussion list <[email-masked]>.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-10

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 11:38:58 +1000

Hi again everyone,

This -10 version includes Mark's suggested text for the Encoding section
(about the context-sensitivity of percent-encoded octets), and updates some
references as requested by Sean. I also changed the metadata to say that
this draft s/obsoletes/updates/ RFC 1738, as I believe that's the
appropriate advice.

Incidentally when updating the references I removed my informative UNC
syntax, which eliminated about half a page of appendix and quite a few
informative references.

If this version sits well with everyone, I just have to make a few small
editorial fixes which I've noticed and it should be good to go.

Cheers

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:45:04 +1000

On 31 May 2016 at 11:38, Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> syntax, which e
> ​​
> liminated about half a page of appendix and quite a few informative
> references.
>
>
I also sent a bug report to MSDN asking them to fix the mangled ABNF on the
MS-DTYP reference [1]; hopefully that will happen so I won't feel so guilty
relying on it, even as an informative reference.

Cheers

[1]: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg465305.aspx
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/